Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 686 posts

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#641

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"As a result, Section 1201 makes it illegal to use or distribute technology (including source code) that bypasses technical measures that control access or copying of copyrighted works, even if that technology can be used in a way that would not be copyright infringement."

Section 1201 does not "make it illegal" to use of copy control circumvention technology. It does not prohibit use of copy control circumvention technology. It prohibits use of access control circumvention technology.

Don't take my word for it. Read what is published by the Copyright Office about Section 1201.

"As envisioned by Congress, section 1201 seeks to balance the interests of copyright owners and users, including the personal interests of consumers, in the digital environment. It does so by protecting the use of technological measures (also called technological protection measures or TPMs) used by copyright owners to prevent unauthorized access to or use of their works. Section 1201 contains three separate protections for TPMs. First, it prohibits circumvention of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners to protect access to their works (also known as access controls). Second, the statute prohibits trafficking in devices or services primarily designed to circumvent access controls. Finally, it prohibits trafficking in devices or services primarily designed to circumvent TPMs used to protect the copyright rights of the owner of a work (also known as copy controls). Copy controls protect against unauthorized uses of a copyrighted work once access has been lawfully obtained. Because title 17 already forbids copyright infringement, there is no corresponding ban on the act of circumventing a copy control."

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/section-1201-full-repo...

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#642

Post by kzrdude »

rectang wrote: post #71
CivBase wrote: post #37

GitHub is still hosting the full youtube-dl version history, including versions which include those supposedly infringing tests. Does copyright law end with HEAD on master? Those tests are still there. This makes it especially obvious that the RIAA's problem with youtube-dl was never really the tests.

> Does copyright law end with HEAD on master? With regards to copyright law and "distribution", there's no distinction. The tests are still being "distributed", just from a different URL. If youtube-dl was in violation before, they still are now. This is a confusing result. I would not expect any copyright litigant to sacrifice legal advantage for the sake of an adversary's convenience in maintaining complete version…

Everything just points to the dmca takedown request being treated as if it was invalid; the repository was restored more quickly than needed and without any real changes.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#643

Post by LandR »

vdfs wrote: post #492
ComputerGuru wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that haven’t experienced the joy of Tolkien’s writing, this is a reference to the Elvish inscription on the Doors of Durin in The Fellowship of the Ring , that is simultaneously a riddle and literal instructions on entering.

Is it accurate to say more than 90% of HN readers have seen that movie?

Havent seen film or read book. We aren't all fans of fantasy or sci-fi genre.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#644

Post by Rochus »

saagarjha wrote: post #638
Rochus wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom And why would one assume that Github or MS do not have such experts? They undoubtedly have the technical know-how, and the primary findings in the letter are of a technical nature, or even obvious to technically savvy people. And the court decisions referred to are not about fair use or free-as-in-f…

Because Microsoft's goals are not directly aligned with fighting DMCA and similar legislation. It takes more than being technically savvy to fight legislation like this; actually, I would say being technically savvy but not experienced will leave you in an unfortunate spot because you'll see through all the copyright stuff but be unable to effectively fight it in court.

The question was rhetoric. They have huge legal departments all over the world. Copyright, licensing and patent contract law are among the most important areas for these companies.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#645

Post by LeoNatan25 »

austhrow743 wrote: post #633
thebean11 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the new policies? It sounds like in the future it will be way more difficult to get repos taken down with DMCAs, and even for legitimate ones they'll allow devs to respond or fix the repo before it gets removed. Maybe GitHub didn't nail it this time but in my opinion it takes some mental gymnastics to not see this post as a really positive turn from GH.

Sure, it's a good change. Doesn't stop the title "Standing up for developers: youtube-dl is back" from being suggestive of Github being the one that stood up for YouTube-dl, which they didn't.

That was my thinking.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#646

Post by feanaro »

sjy wrote: post #527
feanaro wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise, YouTube's rolling cipher can't really validate that it's not sitting inside of an instrumented browser that will dump whatever URLs it grabs. What is the criteria for differentiating between youtube-dl and a "browser"?

In this case a “browser” is a YouTube client that copyright holders are happy with, because it doesn’t provide any simple way of saving offline copies.

I agree. But that's not a viable legal definition.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#647

Post by scrollaway »

CivBase wrote: post #464
thebean11 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the new policies? It sounds like in the future it will be way more difficult to get repos taken down with DMCAs, and even for legitimate ones they'll allow devs to respond or fix the repo before it gets removed. Maybe GitHub didn't nail it this time but in my opinion it takes some mental gymnastics to not see this post as a really positive turn from GH.

> it takes some mental gymnastics to not see this post as a really positive turn from GH. So... why did the EFF have to step in here? GitHub deserves some credit, but I cannot give them all of the credit. As far as I can tell, this situation was at a stand still for the better part of a month until the EFF got involved.

The EFF's letter gave them the legal justification they needed to restore it. It helped.

The fact they restored everything in just a day after receiving it makes that pretty clear. They didn't need to evaluate their options much at all; as soon as they received it, the repo was back. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that the EFF talked off the record with GitHub beforehand.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#648

Post by minusf »

toyg wrote: post #372
mox1 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rebuttal to your reasoning is in the letter. Basically a federal judge has previously ruled that utilizing a publicly available password is not circumvention of a copyright protection mechanism. The code containing the "sig" (as google calls it) or "rolling cipher" (as RIAA calls it) is available to anyone by viewing the JavaScript. This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism.

> This sig / cipher being public means it is not a copyright protection mechanism. I can see this as ending up with Youtube being forced to require sign-ins. Massive expense for Google. Then Youtube-dl adds one parameter for the password, and we're back to square one.

i am already getting a "please log in" nag screen almost every time i open a video link (i block all cookies from youtube).

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#649

Post by jimktrains2 »

bmn__ wrote: post #627
Rochus wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, obvously I have too little experience in picking locks; or maybe you have different locks than we in Switzerland.

GP was speaking metaphorically, following your (GGP's) metaphor. For some reason, you abandoned the metaphoric level and misunderstood this to be about real keys and locks.

For many and most physical keyed locks, you can decode the lock with special picks or impressioning tools. It can be pretty time and skill intensive though.

Re: YouTube-dl's repository has been restored

#650

Post by jononor »

jbay808 wrote: post #459
Aissen wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I even sidestepped the obvious of loading widevine.so, running it, symbolic execution, etc. It's mostly a thought experiment to show how everything is stupid in the end. I'm afraid in a few months/years, we'll see the hardware security level to become mandatory for Netflix, etc. And then YouTube.

In the old days, someone who wanted to send you this kind of content would build and sell hardware for you to receive and play it (like a DVD player). Online streaming services have, in part, scaled so quickly because they run on the general-purpose computers that people already own. So they don't need to bear that hardware cost. These general purpose computers have been fertile soil to grow and nurture the seeds tha…

That kind of "pull the ladder up behind you" strategy would be a natural thing for today dominants players to try. They benefited from an open playing field, but now they no longer need it. If they succeed, they have established a massive moat to stave off competition. If they manage to get it into standards and legislation, then undoing it would require a tectonic shift. Google is especially well positioned for this - Chrome, Google Search, Android and Youtube being potentially very effective places to do DRM media gatekeeping. "don't be evil" had to go from their mission statement. Maybe "universally accessible" will be next...
Post reply on HN